Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney
General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa
Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE,
USA
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
United States District Court
Western District of Washington
At Seattle
INTERVAL LICENSING
LLC, ) Case No. 2:11-cv-00711 MJP
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
GOOGLE, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
-----------------------------------)
United States ) NOTICE
OF DEFAULT AND
ex relatione ) NOTICE
OF INTENT,
Paul Andrew
Mitchell, ) BY
AFFIDAVIT:
)
Interpleader. )
18 U.S.C. 4, 1962;
___________________________________) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
TO
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The United States hereby notoriously appears
specially, not generally, and ex rel.
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General, for the limited purposes of:
(1) providing formal Notice to all Proper Parties, and also to all other
recipients of the instant NOTICEs, (2) satisfying the legal requirements
imposed by the Federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony), and
(3) establishing probable cause calling for the conclusion that the suspects
named infra are engaged in a pattern
of racketeering activities, in violation of the Federal criminal statute at 18
U.S.C. 1962(d).
INCORPORATION
OF EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTS
Relator hereby incorporates true and correct
copies of all attached documents by reference, as if all were set forth fully
here.
NOTICE
OF DEFAULT
Relator hereby provides formal Notice to all
interested Parties, and to all other recipients of the instant NOTICEs, that
each and every NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR EXHIBITION OF CERTIFICATE, as duly
incorporated above, has not been answered and is now IN DEFAULT, as a matter of
established fact.
NOTICE
OF INTENT
Insofar as the facts, as established above,
call for the conclusion that the suspects named infra have been racketeering across State lines, specifically by
transmitting documents and PROOFS OF SERVICE from offices in California to the
Office of the Clerk of this honorable Court, Relator is consequently obligated
to lodge a proper and timely VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION,
formally charging same with multiple RICO “predicate acts,” including but not limited
to mail fraud and wire fraud. See 18
U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1961.
NOTICE
OF RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Relator has been investigating Google, Inc.
and its officers, after filing an administrative complaint with the Consumer
Protection Division in the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.
The latter office has assigned case number #359316
to said complaint.
On February 11, 2010 A.D., Relator’s explanation of his complaint was briefly summarized
to the latter office as follows:
Explanation
of complaint:
On or about September 25, 2008, Google, Inc.
published on the Internet an evidently bona
fide offer of $10 Million, which "will be distributed evenly among the
winners" of the best ideas submitted to Google's Project 10^100:
http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html
From Spokane I submitted this idea: "worldwide
adoption of the goal and committing all resources necessary to realize 1
Gigabit Internet access everywhere on planet Earth." In answer to the question: "What initial
steps are required to get this idea off the ground?" I replied: "A
Policy Proposal circulated widely to IT and government sectors, with a strong
PR budget to commence aggressive advocacy of this idea." Yesterday, Google announced plans that
implement this idea almost to the letter:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html
However, Google staff are now saying that
"winners" will not receive ANY money, only "good karma",
and that the funds offered will be distributed ONLY to organizations, NOT to
individuals who submitted winning ideas.
This change strongly suggests false advertising, bad faith and also
fraud by Google's management, for having widely distributed this exact language
in their original Offer: "... [T]he
$10 million will be distributed evenly among the winners."
Subsequently, Relator supplemented the case
file in the matter of complaint #359316 supra with much additional documentation, including but not limited
to media reports of privacy complaints lodged against Google, Inc. in
connection with its “Street View” data acquisition practices; reports that Google, Inc. have been secretly
collaborating with the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), and possibly also
the National Security Agency (“NSA”), for purposes of implementing
sophisticated electronic surveillance of the American People; and, related reports that an Italian court
convicted three (3) current and former Google executives of privacy violations,
and that a French court has convicted Mr. Eric Schmidt of defamation.
On information and belief, Relator regards
these news reports to be factual and accurate.
NOTICE OF VERIFIED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
FORMALLY CHARGING ALL PAST AND
PRESENT MEMBERS
OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
More to the merits of Relator’s
administrative complaint number #359316 to the Consumer Protection Division
of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, the absence of valid
licenses to practice law in the State of California implicates the suspects
named infra in all of the criminal
violations which Relator previously charged in his VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,
ON INFORMATION (“VCC”), as duly filed and served in California Superior Court
case number #GIC807057.
A copy of the latter VCC is also attached
hereto and likewise incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
All premises having been duly considered,
Relator hereby recommends the following conclusions of law to the United States
(Federal Government) for deliberation by a lawful Federal Grand Jury:
(1)
None of
the suspects named infra has a valid
license to practice law in the State of California;
(2)
None of
the suspects named infra has lawful
power of attorney to appear legally on behalf of named Defendant GOOGLE, INC.;
(3)
None of
the suspects named infra has any
authority to practice law in the State of California, nor in this honorable
Court; and,
(4)
One or
more of the suspects named infra, and
all of their as yet unnamed accomplices, committed multiple acts of wire fraud
by writing, approving, aiding and/or causing misleading and ever changing
“Contest Rules” to be published on the Internet and distributed widely via the
Internet, all in bad faith.
VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Relator in the above entitled action, hereby verify
under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of
facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current
information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1746(1) (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are supreme Law
of the Land, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution or Laws of Washington
State to the contrary. See Supremacy
Clause.)
Dated: July 28, 2012 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
____________________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria
Persona
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C.
1964(a)
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui
Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United
States of America, without the “United States” (federal government),
that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America,
and that I personally served the following document(s):
NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND
NOTICE OF INTENT:
18 U.S.C. 4, 1962; 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)
by placing one true and
correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with
postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:
Clerk of Court (3x)
United States
District Court
700 Stewart Street, Suite 2310
Seattle 98101
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue,
Suite 3800
Seattle 98102
WASHINGTON STATE,
USA
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway
Mountain View 94043
CALIFORNIA, USA
Courtesy Copies:
Consumer Protection Division
Washington State
Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2000
Seattle 98104-3188
WASHINGTON STATE,
USA
I
also hereby certify that I electronically served the foregoing by transmitting
an electronic copy of same to all electronic mail (“email”) addresses listed or
otherwise showing in the attached STIPULATED MOTION TO SERVE AMENDED
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, as filed and served by attorneys for the Plaintiff on
May 26, 2011.
[Please see USPS
Publication #221 for “addressing” instructions.]
Dated: July 28, 2012 A.D.
Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
____________________________________________________________
Printed:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Relator In Propria Persona
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Via Email and First
Class U.S. Mail
June 21, 2011 A.D.
David Carl Drummond,
SBN 142642
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway
Mountain View 94043
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Sections 6002, 6067-6068, 6126-6128
California Business and Professions
Code
Greetings David Carl
Drummond:
We
specifically deny that you were ever a member, in good standing, of The State Bar of California. See Section 6002 supra.
Section
6067 of the California Business and Professions Code reads as follows:
Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to
the best of his knowledge and ability. A
certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.
[bold emphasis added]
DEMAND
Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to
deliver a true and correct copy of said certificate of oath to the mailing
location as shown below, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 1, 2011 A.D.
(approximately ten (10) days hence).
Failure to perform will give us probable
cause to charge you with violating Sections 6126 and 6128 of the California
Business and Professions Code (both misdemeanors). See also 4 U.S.C. 101 (“judicial officer of a
State”) in pari materia with the Article VI, Clause 3 and the Supremacy
Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all supreme
Law of the Land).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal
Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)
U.S. Mail:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
List of pertinent authorities now follows:
Powell
v. Alabama, 287
U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers
of the court”); Malautea v.
Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All
attorneys, as officers of the court
....”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson
Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section
“II.”); “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal
94 (1997); and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory
Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers
of the court, attorneys share ....”)
[bold emphasis added]
Via Email and First
Class U.S. Mail
June 21, 2011 A.D.
Oleg Elkhunovich,
SBN 269238
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1901 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles 90067
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Sections 6002, 6067-6068, 6126-6128
California Business and Professions
Code
Greetings Oleg
Elkhunovich:
We
specifically deny that you were ever a member, in good standing, of The State Bar of California. See Section 6002 supra.
Section
6067 of the California Business and Professions Code reads as follows:
Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to
the best of his knowledge and ability. A
certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.
[bold emphasis added]
DEMAND
Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to
deliver a true and correct copy of said certificate of oath to the mailing
location as shown below, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 1, 2011 A.D.
(approximately ten (10) days hence).
Failure to perform will give us probable
cause to charge you with violating Sections 6126 and 6128 of the California
Business and Professions Code (both misdemeanors). See also 4 U.S.C. 101 (“judicial officer of a
State”) in pari materia with the Article VI, Clause 3 and the Supremacy
Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all supreme
Law of the Land).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal
Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)
U.S. Mail:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
List of pertinent authorities now follows:
Powell
v. Alabama, 287
U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers
of the court”); Malautea v.
Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All
attorneys, as officers of the court
....”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson
Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section
“II.”); “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal
94 (1997); and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory
Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers
of the court, attorneys share ....”)
[bold emphasis added]
Via Email and First
Class U.S. Mail
June 21, 2011 A.D.
Warren Stuart Heit,
SBN 164658
White & Case,
LLP
5 Palo Alto Square,
9th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto 94306
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Sections 6002, 6067-6068, 6126-6128
California Business and Professions
Code
Greetings Warren
Stuart Heit:
We
specifically deny that you were ever a member, in good standing, of The State Bar of California. See Section 6002 supra.
Section
6067 of the California Business and Professions Code reads as follows:
Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to
the best of his knowledge and ability. A
certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.
[bold emphasis added]
DEMAND
Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to
deliver a true and correct copy of said certificate of oath to the mailing
location as shown below, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 1, 2011 A.D.
(approximately ten (10) days hence).
Failure to perform will give us probable
cause to charge you with violating Sections 6126 and 6128 of the California
Business and Professions Code (both misdemeanors). See also 4 U.S.C. 101 (“judicial officer of a
State”) in pari materia with the Article VI, Clause 3 and the Supremacy
Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all supreme
Law of the Land).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal
Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)
U.S. Mail:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
List of pertinent authorities now follows:
Powell
v. Alabama, 287
U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers
of the court”); Malautea v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All attorneys,
as officers of the court
....”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson
Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section
“II.”); “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal
94 (1997); and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory
Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers
of the court, attorneys share ....”)
[bold emphasis added]
Via Email and First
Class U.S. Mail
June 21, 2011 A.D.
Wendi Renee
Schepler, SBN 197474
White & Case,
LLP
5 Palo Alto Square,
9th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto 94306
CALIFORNIA, USA
Subject: Sections 6002, 6067-6068, 6126-6128
California Business and Professions
Code
Greetings Wendi
Renee Schepler:
We
specifically deny that you were ever a member, in good standing, of The State Bar of California. See Section 6002 supra.
Section
6067 of the California Business and Professions Code reads as follows:
Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to
the best of his knowledge and ability. A
certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.
[bold emphasis added]
DEMAND
Formal DEMAND is hereby made of you to
deliver a true and correct copy of said certificate of oath to the mailing
location as shown below, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 1, 2011 A.D.
(approximately ten (10) days hence).
Failure to perform will give us probable
cause to charge you with violating Sections 6126 and 6128 of the California
Business and Professions Code (both misdemeanors). See also 4 U.S.C. 101 (“judicial officer of a
State”) in pari materia with the Article VI, Clause 3 and the Supremacy
Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States are all supreme
Law of the Land).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal
Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
All
Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. UCC 1-308)
U.S. Mail:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA
List of pertinent authorities now follows:
Powell
v. Alabama, 287
U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers
of the court”); Malautea v.
Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All
attorneys, as officers of the court
....”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson
Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section
“II.”); “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal
94 (1997); and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory
Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers
of the court, attorneys share ....”)
[bold emphasis added]